Unearthed Arcana WOTC still can't get the backgrounds right in the new FR book.

[FrogReaver]

Ok 4 fighters with an 18 strength and 16 Constitution (Soldiers) vs 4 fighters with a 17 Strength and 15 Constitution (Acolyte). Is that ok?

I think you only should be replacing 1 of the original 4 fighters to see the true effect of a single pc taking 1 lower str and con mod.

 

[Scott Christian]

+1 mod is usually about a +20% increase after damage and accuracy are factored in.

I understand the math, over the course of 20 rounds has a 20.5% increase in damage. But that is not really the actual number to look at. First, it's a percentage comprised of an illogical comparison. Very rarely do you have two party members make the same exact character.
It is around 5% better overall. Which again, is minimal and not worth debating. It would be so much easier if people who insisted things were "broken" simply said, "I want this extra +1." And it's amazing, because the rules allow you to do this. But instead, people would rather mask it behind how terrible attribute distribution is or how they've seen players quit over a +1 or how there are no benefits outside of having anything but the optimal character.

 

[ECMO3]

You do not understand the math behind a +1. You do not understand the math behind the game. And how could you? You still believe its static. There are a million what ifs in each and every encounter:

Oh I do understand it.

While I am at it I will note that common levels of statistical significance are 0.01 and 0.05. So even if it was really only 5% difference in most things you would evaluate with statistics that is considered a significant deviation.

• What if the bard gave one fighter a bardic inspiration?

Then the absolute difference in damage is even greater.

• What if one fighter had more movement and got into flanking two more times than the other fighter?

Is flanking a thing in 5.5. I never play with it, in any case again the absolute difference in damage is greater.

• What if that cultist fanatic casts hold person on one of the fighters?

Yes then the +1 difference in strength is irrelevant ... and if the fighter had a 3 strength and it was a +6 difference it would be irrelevant.

• What if one of the fighters was tanking a baddie that had resistant to melee, yet the other fighter was fighting a creature that didn't?

Sure but that could just as easily be reversed.

• What if the creature was flying, and the ranger stepped up and did 90% of the damage?

If the Ranger had a +2 instead of a +3 in Dexterity he would statistically do substantially less damage.

• What if Jon is rolling hot, and Jon #2 isn't?

Both Jon #1 and Jon #2 do less damage than they each would if their Strength score was 1 point higher.

• What if, what if, what if?

There are all kinds of what ifs, but this doesn;t change the fact when it comes to damage there is a significant statistical difference associated with a +1 in a stat and in most of the what ifs you provided that +1 will be statistically significant.

Do your other party members actually make sure to help each of these players equally, so as one doesn't want to quit their character and build a new one?

Maybe, maybe not. We are talking about the effectiveness of a character though.

It's bonkers that people actually believe the math that you put out. If you understand the variables, you will understand your math is wrong, and 20% increases are ludicrous to think.

It is not wrong. I am putting out the mean number, that is 100% mathematically defensible. Adding +1 damage when you are doing 6 damage on a hit is an average increase of 15% even if you don't improve your chance to hit at all.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I can see you are not interested in simply saying "I want an extra +1 at character creation." You want to try and mask it behind this facade of broken numbers, and of course, also not mention how fighters get an extra ability score increase at 6th level, which I guess makes everyone want to play a fighter, right? Because, you know, they are able to have an extra +1 over every other class?

Actually I just want WOTC to produce backgrounds system which allow players to be able to build their characters like the want with maximum flexibility. I only brought math into the discussion to counter the claims that it was nearly irrelevant.

 

[Tessarael]

So a DM that has players roll on the magic item table is not a valid approach for this DM.[..]

Perfectly valid and fair approach, but that's not the table at which to have a specialized polearm build, if the chance of generating a magical polearm is 5%. That's where there's a mismatch between player and DM assumptions about what works in the game world. So, best to adjust the player character accordingly, or for the DM to permit another solution, such as selling some treasure at 50% price to purchase the desired magic item (that's what we do in our campaigns anyway).

 

[Maxperson]

You were not the one I replied to. You did not make that claim. Go read the text I replied to! I quoted it exactly above. The claim I replied to and then you replied to me was specifically:

"5% less effective"

So first, he said that as a bonus to you. The reality is that it would be 1% or less effective. Your math doesn't change that, either. Your math is purely about +1 damage, when the combat pillar includes all class abilities, racial abilities useful in combat, magic items, feats, etc. So your 18 or 28 percent or whatever doesn't equate to effectiveness in combat.

Second, I started this little tangent about the +1 being 1 time in 20 more likely to hit. Yada yada. I suspect he was just humoring you with that 5% and that it wasn't a real suggestion of a percentage on his part. This is supported by his agree with me that 1% is closer to the true increase in combat effectiveness from the +1.

And it is not meaningless when you are only doing 1 point of damage. It is huge. Here are your exact words:

" If your PC does 1 point of damage and suddenly he does 2 points of damage, that's a 100%!!!!111!!!!1!!! increase!"

I provided an example for a PC doing 1 point of difference (your example) and provided the math regarding what the extra point of damage meant in combat.

Yep. Next to nothing. The PC would likely be dead before he killed a goblin 2 points at a hit.

Ok 4 fighters with an 18 strength and 16 Constitution (Soldiers) vs 4 fighters with a 17 Strength and 15 Constitution (Acolyte). Is that ok?

This is an example, we can do anything reasonable you want, I just don't want to go through the process of figuring this out and then be told it is a "corner case".

1) Where are they getting an 18 strength from? +2 from background and the extra +1 from where? 2) Why are you giving the 18 strength group Savage Attacker and not the 17 strength guys? 3) How are the 17 strength guys getting a 17 strength with Acolyte not providing a strength increase?

This is fair and I appologize for that. I should have said up to 2.2 more hits per 20 attacks, it is still more than 1 more less than 2.2.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh I do understand it.

While I am at it I will note that common levels of statistical significance are 0.01 and 0.05. So even if it was really only 5% difference in most things you would evaluate with statistics that is considered a significant deviation.

Oh god. That’s not how that works at all. Statistical significance is about testing a hypothesis and finding that there’s only a 5% chance or 1% chance for your actual data results to have happened by random chance (or whatever you’ve chosen as your critical value).

 

[Scott Christian]

There are all kinds of what ifs, but this doesn;t change the fact when it comes to damage there is a significant statistical difference associated with a +1 in a stat and in most of the what ifs you provided that +1 will be statistically significant.

Do you see how all my what ifs are true, and they can happen? And they could happen more often to the fighter with the higher strength over the course of 20 rounds. Heck, two rounds of hold person on the fighter with the higher strength just negated all his extra damage over the course of 20 rounds of combat. That is, on average, 6-7 combats. Or, for many people, 2-3 four-hour game play sessions. Do you see how the game's variables make it not matter as much as people think it does?

Actually I just want WOTC to produce backgrounds system which allow players to be able to build their characters like the want with maximum flexibility. I only brought math into the discussion to counter the claims that it was nearly irrelevant.

They did. It's in the DM's Guide. And it's also in advice on session 0.

But we are talking specifically about character creation, level 1, backgrounds being "screwed up." I get You want a background that also gives you maximum benefit of feat and ASI. That's all you have to say, "My claim is they should have made it where no matter what background I choose, I get to place my +1 & +2 in whatever ability I want." Because that is what you want. You don't want to have to hunt for the right combo, nor do you want to have to compromise by having one less +1 than someone who has the right combo. I get it.

 

[Scott Christian]

Perfectly valid and fair approach, but that's not the table at which to have a specialized polearm build, if the chance of generating a magical polearm is 5%. That's where there's a mismatch between player and DM assumptions about what works in the game world. So, best to adjust the player character accordingly, or for the DM to permit another solution, such as selling some treasure at 50% price to purchase the desired magic item (that's what we do in our campaigns anyway).

Hi Tessarael, I was just teasing. I think you are right, for that specific player, if they are that concerned with something like that, you just give it to them. If that other player having an extra +1 messes up their enjoyment of the game so much that they feel they have to stop and build a new character - just give it to them. Heck, I would even go so far as to give them a +2 weapon, so they feel even more bad-ass.

The reason? Because if I am building my encounters correctly, it will have a minimal impact.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh I do understand it.

While I am at it I will note that common levels of statistical significance are 0.01 and 0.05. So even if it was really only 5% difference in most things you would evaluate with statistics that is considered a significant deviation.



Then the absolute difference in damage is even greater.




Is flanking a thing in 5.5. I never play with it, in any case again the absolute difference in damage is greater.



Yes then the +1 difference in strength is irrelevant ... and if the fighter had a 3 strength and it was a +6 difference it would be irrelevant.


Sure but that could just as easily be reversed.



If the Ranger had a +2 instead of a +3 in Dexterity he would statistically do substantially less damage.



Both Jon #1 and Jon #2 do less damage than they each would if their Strength score was 1 point higher.




There are all kinds of what ifs, but this doesn;t change the fact when it comes to damage there is a significant statistical difference associated with a +1 in a stat and in most of the what ifs you provided that +1 will be statistically significant.



Maybe, maybe not. We are talking about the effectiveness of a character though.



It is not wrong. I am putting out the mean number, that is 100% mathematically defensible. Adding +1 damage when you are doing 6 damage on a hit is an average increase of 15% even if you don't improve your chance to hit at all.



Actually I just want WOTC to produce backgrounds system which allow players to be able to build their characters like the want with maximum flexibility. I only brought math into the discussion to counter the claims that it was nearly irrelevant.

You're missing @Scott Christian's point. His point is that there are so many variables in combat on both sides, that the +1 cannot be said to be 18% or 28% more damage. It might be more. It might be less. Overall it's probably less than 1% of a PC's effectiveness in combat.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're missing @Scott Christian's point. His point is that there are so many variables in combat on both sides, that the +1 cannot be said to be 18% or 28% more damage. It might be more. It might be less. Overall it's probably less than 1% of a PC's effectiveness in combat.

I think you are using two different measures of effectiveness.